So Long, And Thanks For All The Cash

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pressing for quick ratification of the New START treaty, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) reiterated again on Wednesday there wasn’t enough time left in this lame-duck session of Congress to consider it. ~The Politico

Last week, there seemed to be a slight chance that the continuing resolution and tax deal would set the stage for bringing the treaty up for debate and a vote. So much for that. At this point, I assume we can all agree that Kyl never had any intention of debating and voting on the treaty in the lame-duck session, and all of the frenetic lobbying of the last three weeks was not going to change that. Perhaps Kyl held out the prospect of bringing up the treaty this year to make sure that Lugar agreed to the Senate GOP’s filibuster threat ahead of the tax deal, and once the deal was made he could revert to his earlier stalling. Of course, when Kyl insists that the treaty needs as much as two weeks to debate an arms reduction treaty, it is easy for him to conclude that there is “not enough time,” as he has set the bar so high that there never could have been enough time.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 2 comments

2 Responses to So Long, And Thanks For All The Cash

One can understand how the Republican Party, which has built its brand around nationalistic militarism, refuses to understand that when you reduce your spending on guns, you have more to spend on butter. But how to explain why the Democratic Party, particularly the so called progressive base, gives lip service to the principle, but always reverts in its behavior to do what it really loves to do, stir up class envy. To wit: in the context of the START treaty, has anyone seen any Democrat or Progressive make the argument that a more secure relationship with Russia means less money required for guns and more money available for butter. The answer to that would be no. In fact the Republicans want to spend more as a condition for going along with the treaty. Until Defense spending takes center stage in the deficit/debt conversation, it’s going to be business as usual in government until external factors force a correction.

Democrats in general and Obama supporters in particular see all sorts of legislative coupling that just isn’t there. No one, other than some hopeful bloggers, suggested that START had anything to do with the tax cuts. I am also reminded of endless assertions that Obama had to sign the FISA extension (way back in aught-eight) in order to secure GOP support for healthcare reform (lol). There was and is no basis for these agendas to be coupled.

I’ll note here that DREAM has passed the House, and I fully expect is to pass the Senate. So, why DREAM but not START? Because immigration is a prickly issued and passing DREAM now allows the GOP to either take credit for it or distance themselves from it depending on the environment, but START is solid on the merits and the GOP wants to own that legislative “win” by passing it in the next session.